The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Navin Kumar W.P.(S). No. 1896 of 2024 ---------- Versus ………… Petitioner The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1916 of 2024 Md. Gulam Sarwar ………… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2246 of 2024 Sukhlal Mahto …………. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1436 of 2024 1. Dilip Kumar 2. Santosh Kumar 3. Chandra Deo Sah 4. Ashok Kumar Saha 5. Aftab Alam 6. Simant Kumar Mandal 7. Satya Narayan Saha …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents 1. Sita Ram 2. Ramesh Kumar With W.P.(S). No. 1616 of 2024 …………… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1652 of 2024 1. Umesh Prasad Yadav 2. Sudhanshu Kumar Deo 3. Sunil Kumar 4. Md. Aftab Ansari 5. Jai Prakash Narayan Choudhary 6. Vijay Kumar Yadav 7. Bhupal Kumar Kapri 8. Aniruddhu Mandal 9. Rajesh Kumar 10. Balkrishna Yadav 11. Shaligram Prasad Yadav 1 12. Santosh Kumar Thakur 13. Ashok Kumar Yadav 14. Sanoj Kumar Barnwal 15. Nayeemudin Ali Ansari 16. Kutubuddin Ansari 17. Ashok Kumar 18. Mahendra Yadav 19. Sunil Kumar Raut 20. Dhananjay Barnwal 21. Ajay Kumar Roy The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ……….. Respondents ………… Petitioners Versus With W.P.(S). No. 1744 of 2024 1. Mahendra Kumar Ravi 2. Arun Prasad Mehta 3. Shyam Sundar Yadav 4. Nihar Ranjan Sarkar 5. Asha Kiran Marandi 6. Kumari Priyanka …………. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ………….. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1761 of 2024 1. Satyajit Suman 2. Md. Akbal Ansari @ A Ansari The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …………. Respondents …………. Petitioners Versus With W.P.(S). No. 1812 of 2024 1. Mohan Banshidhar Pandi 2. Kedar Sahu 3. Dwarika Mahto 4. Dharmendra Kumar 5. Sabita Kumari 6. Rajendra Saw 7. Dipak Kumar Ghosh 8. Md. Harun Shaikh 9. Upendra Prasad Gupta 10. Jay Prakash Narayan 11. Dewashish Kumar Das 12. Jayant Kumar 13. Raj Kumar 14. Sumita Kumari Kisku 2 15. Md. Javed Jamal Ansari 16. Chandrahas Vishwakarma 17. Vijay Kumar Sahu 18. Md. Reyaz Ansari 19. Dinesh Mahto 20. Md. Kutubuddin Ansari 21. Haribol Yadav 22. Rakesh Kumar 23. Sanjay Kumar Paswan 24. Rajesh Kumar Dangi 25. Rajnee Kant Choubey 26. Ravindra Dangi 27. Umesh Saw 28. Alberta Baxla 29. Basudeo Rawani 30. Dinesh Kumar Mahato 31. Usman Ansari 32. Khaja Ahamad Abbas 33. Gouri Nath Manjhi …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand Ranchi & Ors. …………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1886 of 2024 1. Santosh Kumar Saw 2. Prabhu Kumar Verma …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1892 of 2024 1. Manoj Kumar Sharma 2. Praveen Kumar Singh 3. Mithlesh Kumar Saw 4. Narayan Paswan 5. Bisheshwar Saw 6. Badri Nath Singh 7. Birendra Kumar 8. Sunil Paswan 9. Jitendra Kumar 10. Ajay Kumar Verma 11. Ruplal Mandal 12. Lakhpati Saw 13. Raju Kumar Saw 14. Binod Kumar Yadav 15. Santosh Kumar Saha 3 16. Harihar Prasad Sinha 17. Giridhari Singh Yadav 18. Dinesh Kumar 19. Anil Kumar Saw 20. Pankaj Kumar 21. Ajay Kumar 22. Ashok Kumar 23. Harihar Yadav 24. Kailash Yadav 25. Rajesh Kumar Das 26. Naresh Kumar 27. Pradeep Ravidas 28. Purusottam Pushp 29. Mahendra Kumar 30. Janardan Prasad Yadav 31. Lalita Kumari 32. Maneshwar Mahto 33. Sheen Raza 34. Ramnaresh Turi 35. Kumari Rina Rana 36. Raj Kumar 37. Vijay Kumar 38. Naresh Kumar Mahto 39. Govind Kumar Das 40. Rajkumar Das 41. Md. Tohid Ansari 42. Balgovind Ram 43. Ramdeo Kumar Rana 44. Vijay Kumar Das …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1893 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
1. Mohan Kumar 2. Binod Kumar Yadav 3. Binod Prasad Yadav 4. Md. Ajim Ansari 5. Asgar Ali 6. Shrikant Sourabh 7. Manoja Nand Sharma 8. Md. Jabbar Ansari 9. Mustakim Ansari 10. Surendra Prasad Verma 11. Mahesh Prasad Verma 12. Pintu Kumar Yadav 13. Srikant Kumar Kaushik 4 14. Rajendra Kumar 15. Binod Vishwakarma 16. Ram Kishor Verma 17. Bino Das 18. Jay Prakash Sharma 19. Pravez Alam 20. Sakaldeo Prasad Yadav 21. Ram Prawesh Viswakarma 22. Bhola Kumar 23. Rajesh Kumar 24. Hatim Ansari 25. Mukul Kumar 26. Rajesh Kumar 27. Satyadeo Prasad 28. Ramanand Raman 29. Ravindra Kumar 30. Dinesh Kumar 31. Kisun Chandra Mandal 32. Kapildeo Rajak 33. Govind Rajak 34. Manoj Kumar Rajak 35. Kishor Kumar Sharma 36. Ajay Kumar Pandey 37. Bam Shankar Ray 38. Talebar Kumar …………. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2050 of 2024 1. Praveen Prasad 2. Md. Shahid 3. Diwakar Prasad Verma @ Diwakar Pd. Verma 4. Chhotilal Prasad 5. Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadav @ Shiv Shankar Pd. Yadav 6. Ashok Kumar 7. Chandrashekhar Kumar Rajak 8. Kailash Ram 9. Naresh Prasad Singh 10. Amit Kumar Sharma 11. Rajesh Kumar Saha 12. Rina Saha 13. Krishna Kachhap 14. Ram Narayan Bhagat …………. Petitioners The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …………. Respondents Versus 5 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioners For the Respondents : M/s. Gautam Kr. Pandey, K.S. Nanda, Ranjan Kumar, Yasir Arafat, Vijay Shanker Jha, T.K. Mishra, Prashan Kr. Rahul, V.K. Roy, Ankit Apurva, Krishna Prajapati, Advocates : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG-IA Mrs. D.P. Mishra, AAG-I Mr. Achyut Keshav, AAG-V Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V Mr. Prabhat Kumar, SC-II Mr. Suchendra Prasad, GP-IV Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV Mr. Sreenu Garapati, SC-III Mr. M.L. Yadav, SC(L&C)-III Md. Shahabuddin, SC-VII Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC(M) 03/ 30.04.2024 Defects pointed-out by the Office are hereby ignored. ---------- 2. Since, the issues involved in all these writ petitions are similar and identical and as such they have been tagged together and are being
Decision
disposed of by this common order. 3. Heard the parties. 4. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to allow them to participate in the counselling process in the respective districts for which they have applied for consideration of their candidatures under Para/ Non-Para categories for remaining vacancies of Intermediate Trained Teachers for Classes 1 to 5 / 6 to 8 and if the petitioners are found eligible, they may be suitably appointed as they have already applied against the vacancies in different districts in the year 2015 and the candidates having lesser marks than the petitioners have been called and allowed to participate in the counselling. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases and this Court after hearing the parties vide its judgment delivered on 16.02.2022, allowed the said writ petitions with 6 the following directions: “18. …….……….. I hereby direct the respondents to initiate process of counseling for the present petitioners by way of last opportunity, since they have obtained more marks than the last selected candidates in the merit list. The petitioners shall approach the Deputy Commissioners the concerned Districts, as early as possible, of preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner shall initiate the process of counseling after giving proper notice to the petitioners by way of Press Communique, advertising the notice in the local newspaper having the wide circulation in the concerned Districts and also by putting the notice on the Notice Board of the Office of concerned District Superintendent the entire process of of Education and counseling be completed within a period of further four weeks subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria and also if the present petitioners have secured more marks than the last selected candidates.” thereafter, 6. Thereafter, the respondent-State challenged the said order before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in LPA No. 203 of 2022 and the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court dismissed the LPA preferred by the respondent-State. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under: “57. This Court, on entirety of facts and circumstances, is of the view that the order passed by learned Single Judge needs no interference by this Court and the direction so passed by learned Single Judge needs no interference by this Court and is required to be complied with at an earliest as the vacancies is of the year 2015 and it must be put to logical end without snatching right of candidates, if they are otherwise eligible. Therefore, the appellants-State are hereby directed to: I. Initiate the process of counseling forthwith for the present petitioners by way of last opportunity as it is alleged they have obtained more marks than the last selected candidates in the merit list in the respective districts. II. The petitioners shall approach the Deputy Commissioners of the concerned Districts, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. III. However, in the meantime, the Deputy Commissioner of 7 the concerned district shall give proper notice to the petitioners by way of Press Communique, advertising the notice in the local newspaper having the wide circulation in the concerned Districts and also by putting the notice on the Notice Board of the Office of concerned District Superintendent of Education. IV. This Court hopes and trusts that the entire process of counseling will be completed within a period of further eight weeks subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria and also if the present petitioners have secured more marks than the last selected candidates. V. It is made clear that the entire process of selection shall be made strictly in accordance with relevant rules/regulations and judicial pronouncements, as mentioned above, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. VI. Let it be made clear that no further counselling shall be held for any reasons whatsoever as the advertisement for appointment of these teachers are of 2015 and the aforesaid directions have been facts and issued circumstances of the case, which shall be not taken as precedent.” in peculiar 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since similar issue has already been decided by this Court, present petitioners are also entitled for the similar benefits, what has been extended to the petitioners of W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has no objection to the same. 9. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of in terms of the order dated 16.02.2022, passed by this Court in case of W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases as well as LPA No. 203 of 2022 and if the cases of the present petitioners are found to be same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits. 8 10. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to verify the factual aspects/issues involved in the present writ petitions vis. a vis. factual aspects/issues involved in W.P.(S). No. 2378 of 2019 (Paras Nath Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases, and if the facts/issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petition, the same benefits may be extended to the present petitioners also in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 11. Let it be made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the cases. 12. With these observations and directions, all these writ petitions stand disposed of. Kunal (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 9